Update On The Uvalde Massacre Extension Of The Sandy Hook Ethics Train Wreck, Part 1

As Glenn Reynolds quips in such situations, “You’re going to need a bigger blog.”

The most depressing post-shooting development is that the Uvalde police completely abdicated their duty and allowed the maniac in an elementary school to keep shooting children. Texas DPS Lt. Chris Olivarez explained on CNN why police officers were reluctant to enter Robb Elementary School while the murders were going on. “They could have been shot. They could have been killed,” he said.

Oh. Well that explains it then. Of course, the police outnumbered the 18-year-old and presumably had more training, they could hear the shots, and being armed themselves, they still has a better chance at survival than the children , but, hey, look out for #1, right?

The shooter entered  Robb Elementary School through an open door , barricaded himself in a classroom and killed 19 children and two teachers. Nobody stood in his way. He had been outside the school for 12 minutes, firing at a funeral home across the street. The first 911 call was made at 11:30 am, and police didn’t arrive until 11:44. A Border Patrol tactical team finally entered the school almost an hour after Salvador Ramos had started shooting students, at around 12:40 p.m. They were able to get into the classroom and kill Ramos.

Meanwhile, reports that have not been definitively confirmed or disproved claim from witnesses that some police officers entered the school to rescue their own children, and that police pepper sprayed and handcuffed some parents who were demanding that they stop the shooter.

Three observations:

  • Everyone should wait for the facts to come out.
  • The conduct of the police does not change or mitigate the fact that an 18-year-old with a troubled history managed to buy two guns legally and use them to murder 19 children and two teachers in a school. If he had entered the school and failed to kill anyone, the issues would be the same. The anti-Second Amendment activists and demagogues just wouldn’t have had enough to work with.
  • The argument that citizens shouldn’t have access to guns isn’t supported by the alleged conduct by the police in this tragedy. In fact, the opposite is the case. If police won’t take risks to save endangered children and use their weapons, then citizens must have the tools to do the job the police won’t.

The reactions of various prominent individuals get them tickets on this train wreck. For example,

  • Pollster Frank Luntz suggests euphemisms will help the effort to constrain Second Amendment rights. “‘Gun control’ makes it irreversibly political. ‘Gun safety’ is something everyone can agree on,’ Luntz tweeted on Thursday. Luntz is the author of the book “Words That Work: It’s Not What You Say, It’s What People Hear.”

Yes, the way to slip laws and policies by the public is to be deceitful and hide what really is involved: you know, like calling support for killing fetuses “pro-choice.” Luntz is a weasel.

  • The gun company that made one of the weapons Ramos purchased is going out of its way to act guilty and to behave in a manner that gives anti-gun Democrats “ammunition.” Of course, Daniel Defense has already showed an absence of ethics alarms and common sense.

    The arms manufacturer whose website states, “At Daniel Defense, we celebrate the liberty of our country, the enthusiasm of our customers and employees, and the quality and accuracy of our products” issued a social media post on May 16, the day Ramos turned 18. It read,

“Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old, he will not depart from it.”

 The post included a photo of a toddler sitting with an AR-15-style assault rifle on its lap. Daniel Defense  posted the same image and text on Instagram that day, which included the hashtag #childrenarethefuture. Yes, that’s moral luck again, but a gun company that uses such promotion techniques is playing, uh, Russian Roulette.

Then the company deleted the posts. Either a company has a genuine belief in what it does, or it know that its business is unethical. There is no integrity at Daniel Defense.

  • Ugh. Herschel Walker, the Trump-backed candidate for the U.S. Senate in Georgia, said the following in response to questions about the shooting: 

Cain killed Abel and that’s a problem that we have. What we need to do is look into how we can stop those things. You know, you talked about doing a disinformation — what about getting a department that can look at young men that’s looking at women that’s looking at their social media. What about doing that? Looking into things like that and we can stop that that way. But yet they want to just continue to talk about taking away your constitutional rights. And I think there’s more things we need to look into. This has been happening for years and the way we stop it is putting money into the mental health field, by putting money into other departments rather than departments that want to take away your rights.”

Got it! Walker is an idiot. This is signature significance: he’s less articulate and even worse off-script than Kamala Harris. Walker’s flacks tried to clean up this mess, but that’s impossible: I will state with 100% certainty that candidate who cannot respond more competently than that gibberish has no business running for the U.S. Senate or getting a single vote in the election, and it doesn’t matter if he is running against a lump of cheese. It’s a disgrace that he’s in this position, and the Republican Party, Donald Trump who endorsed him, GOP voters in the primary, and Walker himself share that shame.

That’s all I can take right now.

More to come.

Unfortunately.

 

 

25 thoughts on “Update On The Uvalde Massacre Extension Of The Sandy Hook Ethics Train Wreck, Part 1

  1. Here is an interesting post by Jim Treacher.

    https://jimtreacher.substack.com/p/president-biden-must-disarm-the-secret

    Guns are bad. Joe Biden said so. Why would he lie?

    Twitter avatar for @POTUS
    President Biden
    @POTUS
    It’s just sick that gun manufacturers have spent two decades aggressively marketing assault weapons which make them some of the biggest profits.

    For God’s sake, let’s have the courage to stand up to the industry.
    May 25th 2022

    12,740 Retweets100,881 Likes
    And for once, his administration isn’t backpedalling like mad after he makes a public statement:

    Twitter avatar for @Breaking911
    Breaking911
    @Breaking911
    PRESS SEC. JEAN-PIERRE: “America has more guns than people in this country. If more guns were indeed the solution, we would be the safest country in the world—but we are not. And so, the President has been very clear. He wants action.”
    May 26th 2022

    78 Retweets269 Likes
    At this point in Biden’s life, the only action he wants is an uneventful bowel movement.

    But okay, let’s assume for the sake of argument that this is true. Biden wants some sort of action on guns? Then here’s what he needs to do:

    Disarm the Secret Service.

    Biden lives in the most heavily guarded building on the continent. Wherever he goes, whatever he does, he’s constantly surrounded by guns. Hell, there are snipers on the roof of the White House 24/7. Guns everywhere.

    If more guns were indeed the solution, Biden would live in the safest house in the world. But he and his administration tell us that the opposite is true. More guns make people less safe, they insist.

    Okay then, set an example for the rest of us. Prove the theory. No more guns in the White House. Keep the Secret Service, but take away their firearms. That way, Biden will be much safer.

    Right?

    If libs actually believe their own gun-control rhetoric, there should be no counterargument. Guns are intrinsically evil, so nobody should carry them anywhere near the president.

    And that’s where the lie collapses on itself. Nobody is stupid or crazy enough to believe disarming the Secret Service would make the president more safe. Getting rid of his armed security would be tantamount to suicide.

    If the president of the United States has the right to protect his own life with as many guns as it takes, why don’t the rest of us? Either the United States Constitution applies to all Americans or it doesn’t. Which is it?

    Hello? Anybody? I just want one lib to answer any of these questions. Tell us why we should be defenseless against attackers, but our moral, ethical, and intellectual betters get to have as many guns as they want.

    But this is all you hear:

    • Playing devil’s advocate:

      Joining the Secret Service has more intense vetting than the average joe buying a gun.

      • Indeed. And no one can deny that being the President of the United States is tantamount to putting a target on one’s back. The President must be protected.

        That being said, there are people all over the country that abuse their freedoms. Liberties guaranteed in the Constitution should not be stripped from all citizens just because some citizens abuse them.

  2. I tried to leave this comment on Jonathan Turley’s blog post. (For some reason, it will not post there.)

    Here is a dirty little secret.

    Street thugs and gangbangers use civil rights protections to enable their crimes and escape punishment.

    They peaceably assemble and speak to plan and prepare robberies and drive-by shootings.

    They peacefully bear arms to and from the scenes of robberies and drive-by shootings.

    They use their freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures to conceal evidence of their robberies and drive-by shootings.

    They use their rights to a fair trial and due process to avoid punishment for their robberies and drive-by shootings.

    They use their right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment to avoid the punishment that they deserve for their robberies and drive-by shootings, even if they are judged guilty consistently with their other rights.

    Given the above, who among us will still support the Bill of Rights?

    • When you give away other people’s rights, you give away your own. You cannot exchange liberty for safety because the biggest thug around will always be the government.

  3. The police comment about getting shot at is very dunderheaded. You don’t have to be a PR guru to know, that sounds terrible. I guess the police were sure happy there were lots of small school children to take up those bullets for them. New tactics development, every SWAT team gets a kindergarten class to go with them on mission. I mean, you wouldn’t want a SWAT member get shot, right?

  4. “What about getting a department that can look at young men that’s looking at women that’s looking at their social media.”

    Wow. That’s some of the finest word salad garbage I’ve seen served up in a long time (excluding Kamala Harris, the undisputed all-time champion, of course ). I think he’s talking about creating a Department Of Pre-Crime to monitor social media (or at least that subset of social media users that are young men watching women watch them, or something). That he thinks this Orwellian surveillance regime is somehow an alternative to abridging constitutional rights is breathtakingly stupid. If Warnock and Walker are truly the best options Georgia can muster to send to the US Senate, it might be time to start exploring ways to evict states from the union.

    • I’ll take an inarticulate senator over a power hungry totalitarian demagogue every day.
      We had a clean and articulate Senator who did more to cause social strife than any contender for champion chef of the word salad.

        • Yeah, that’s not inarticulateness, that’s utter idiocy. He doesn’t have any idea what he’s taking about, just babbling some words that he hopes will somehow self-assemble into a decipherable concept.

          Dumb politicians can be just as damaging as the power-hungry types. They are often too stupid to know when they’re being manipulated by others, a trait that is very dangerous in a person holding a position of power. *cough*Biden*cough*

          In any case, the most likely translation of Walker’s garbled nonsense is that he’s proposing (in a brain-dead, knee-jerk, not-at-all-thought-out way) that the government monitor large groups of people who have not committed any crime, based only on demographics. That is stepping too close to the totalitarian line for my comfort, and the fact that he’s throwing it out there without realizing that it has serious constitutional and ethical implications is worrisome.

          When the authoritarians take more power for themselves, does it really matter what their motivations are? In the end, all power ends up being abused by those who wield it. Maybe not by the first guy put in charge of the Bureau Of Reading Everyone’s E-mail, but for sure by the third or fourth guy who gets the job. From my point of view, choosing between a totalitarian demagogue seeking power and a moron too stupid to understand the fundamental concepts of liberty is hardly a choice worth making. If two roads lead to hell, you’re probably smarter to take the longer path, but the eventual destination remains the same.

  5. Beau of the Fifth Column has some insightful analysis on gun control that may help move the conversation forward. He doesn’t see abolishing the Second Amendment as practical or desirable. One of the angles he highlights is that the problem of people using firearms to lash out with senseless violence started within recent decades, and it’s tied to a culture of using guns as symbols of strength, instead of developing actual strength of character and the ability to deal with problems without violence. Changing that culture will take finesse but would resolve most of the issue.

    From a different angle, his recent video on the subject, “Let’s talk about something better than a ban….”, recommends closing loopholes that allow people with a history of domestic violence to own guns. That seems like it would also prevent abused and vengeful children from being able to steal guns from their parents’ gun lockers.

    Here’s his playlist on gun control:
    https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLZOMlO2_17fvGixcyOOWmwU_mpEm_T58E

    Gun control is just one of the many social issues about which Beau has constructive takes, although I think he deliberately omits criticism of Democrats on key points (like the Rittenhouse trial) to avoid alienating much if not most of his audience. Considering he’s a respected voice of reason and nuance, this disappoints me greatly, because I think he could make a huge positive impact by setting an example of intellectual integrity when it comes to how the justice system works. Even with that, though, he’s still a significant force for good. I can’t blame him that much for wanting to choose his battles and spend his political capital carefully, what with his audience being humans.

    • One of the angles he highlights is that the problem of people using firearms to lash out with senseless violence started within recent decades, and it’s tied to a culture of using guns as symbols of strength, instead of developing actual strength of character and the ability to deal with problems without violence. Changing that culture will take finesse but would resolve most of the issue.

      That culture exists in the inner city.

      Here is an example of what that culture leads to.

      https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1997-aug-02-me-18770-story.html

      When I first heard of this, I wanted the U.S. military to launch cruise missile strikes at the place!

    • Domestic abusers are already barred from purchasing firearms. It’s one of the questions asked on the 4473 form and it should appear on the NICS check. The Sutherland Springs shooter should have been prevented from buying his firearm on that ground, but the Air Force never updated his profile to reflect his domestic abuse conviction. Somebody should have been court marshaled for that. Unless the desire is to take guns away from people convicted of domestic abuse, which is something I thought already happened.

      • It sounds like the general theme with gun control is that the legal measures for preventing gun violence are actually pretty good already, and as far as the law goes, the solution isn’t better procedures so much as competently applying the procedures we already have. That’s an unusual state of affairs.

        • “That’s an unusual state of affairs.”
          I think that it is pretty normal (usual) to notice that government isn’t particularly good at its job.

          • Human incompetence in government is indeed common, but the impression that I get is that usually the government is bad at its job because it sets up incompetent processes, not because it sets up decently competent processes but fails to adhere to them. My impression may be inaccurate, though.

      • It does not go far enough.

        Domestic abusers should also be prohibited from practicing law.

        They should be prohibited from practicing medicine.

        They should be prohibited from having any form of intimate contact or relationship.

        They should be required to wear a distinctive badge when out in public.

        • I don’t think you can ban someone from having relationships with others. Law and medicine are probably private employers issues. Not certain that the distinctive badge thing is legal either. And I doubt most Americans would support it, screeching minority aside when the vax passes came up.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.